And I’m Justin Elliott, a reporter for ProPublica, covering politics with a focus on money and influence.

We’ve just published an investigation (along with NPR’s Laura Sullivan) into the Red Cross’ failures to provide basic disaster relief after Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy. Read it here.

Quick look at what we found through internal documents and interviews with Red Cross insiders:

• Emergency relief vehicles were rerouted after Sandy for PR purposes.
• Some of the disabled Sandy victims left to sleep in wheelchairs.
• Sex offenders sheltered next to children.

These are just a few of the things we found investigating the American Red Cross and its response to Superstorm Sandy. What the charity’s CEO said in public -- calling the response “near flawless” -- and what we found in internal documents couldn’t be more opposite. Today, we’d like to open up the investigation to you all and answer almost anything about the American Red Cross and its “secret disaster.” ASK US ANYTHING.

We’re also still looking for help reporting the story. So, if you have experience with or information about the American Red Cross, including its financial and statistical reporting, you can help us in several ways. SHARE A TIP.

Did you get the sense that there is some kind of fundamental flaw in the idea of a disaster-relief agency or that the Red Cross is just run poorly? As mentioned previously FEMA has been terrible in its past responses as well. Do you believe the preparation and work related to "disaster-relief" may need to be reworked to promote a more locally-based response system so as not to be hampered by the bureaucracy of a large organization?

Yes, the Red Cross through its law firm Gibson Dunn fought one of Justin's public records requests arguing that having to detail how it spent the Sandy donation money was a "trade secret.".

Hmmmm.

The reporting on this was an interesting change for me, as someone who typically covers finance, banks and investment banks. Good people wanted to speak to us about the Red Cross because they were concerned and wanted to make it a better organization. They held the Red Cross to high standards (properly).

With banks, people don't expect them to be philanthropic organizations. Uh, to put it mildly.

As for your initial questions, we don't know what the organizational response to our stories will be. They have put out a series of responses to our stories, but they are highly misleading. They haven't cited any specific inaccuracies.

But many people we spoke with said that given the re-organizations, lay-offs and disaffection among workers, reservists and volunteers, they are worried that the Red Cross is not well prepared for the next disaster.

Our core conclusions were drawn from the Red Cross' own internal assessments that came out of national headquarters in Washington. It was then a careful reporting process to understand the documents (there are a lot of acronyms and jargon in the disaster relief world).

To @dcshrader's question: Jesse, Laura, and I interviewed dozens of people, including many Red Cross officials and volunteers, storm victims, and government officials. It was very difficult to find sources with positive things to say about the Red Cross' responses to Sandy and Isaac. More importantly, multiple sources confirmed and fleshed out the Red Cross' own conclusions from its internal assessments.

By the way, we are still reporting on the Red Cross and anyone with comments, criticism, or tips who would prefer email can reach me directly: [email protected]

We spoke to dozens of people, the vast majority of whom didn't make it into the story. The story flowed from the Red Cross documents from Red Cross HQ in Washington.

I did speak to Mike Whitehead, who generously gave of his time. I welcome his thoughts on our story, either to me directly ([email protected]) or through his blog. Mike and I mainly discussed general approaches to disaster response. When I asked him specifically about the Red Cross's efforts during Sandy, he told me "I'm not in the business of criticizing people." He did not, however, then praise the Red Cross's response to Sandy.

Our motivation is to shine a light on powerful organizations and people, government, corporate and non-governmental. We hold the powerful accountable -- and the Red Cross is a worthy subject for scrutiny, given Americans trust it with their money almost more than any other non-profit.

Why does ProPublica cover some big stories and not others? Like my friend sent you guys a tip about a major pharmaceutical company that was allegedly using a fake advocacy organization in order to get people to participate in their clinical drug trial, and then to keep them in the study. Scary stuff, they set up a fake facebook, twitter, and even Pinterest account. The lack of transparency was entirely unethical, especially considering the drug being tested is controversial.

Kinda a big thing right there, and she didn't even get even get a generic response back. ProPublica definitely lost some credibility in my eyes after that. I would've liked to have seen some investigative journalism with that story. So I'm curious how the reporters at ProPublica decide what stories to pursue, and which ones to look into?

As for how we pick our stories, it's basically all instinct. Does it stir the conscience? Is it relevant for the public interest? Can we report it out or would it be impossible? Sometimes we try to ask big questions and try to report specific answers and sometimes we get specific tips and try to confirm and broaden them out to make them relevant to the widest audience possible.